Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-05-02-Speech-3-150"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010502.10.3-150"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Belarus commemorates the Chernobyl disaster on 25 April of each year, and tens of thousands of people take part in those commemorations. In the West, it is a little known fact why that is, for the nuclear power station was located in Ukraine. But upon closer inspection of the effects of the disaster, it becomes clear that Belarus, where more than 70% of the nuclear fall-out ended up, was at least as badly affected as Ukraine. In the latter country, nearly two and a half million people were exposed to radioactivity. Over the past ten years, the Ukrainian government has spent USD six billion to combat the effects, and this spending is set to continue for the time being. To quote a few examples: funding is needed to repair the housing built around the exploded reactor as it is deemed unsafe. A great deal of materials polluted by the explosion need to be stored and processed. Ukraine’s main river, the Dnepr, is still at risk of becoming contaminated.
The European Union has addressed a number of these problems in good time and has given a great deal of aid to Ukraine – something which the Commissioner already referred to – although the effectiveness of that aid is sometimes called into question.
The situation in Belarus is possibly worse still. About two and a half million people are still living in the contaminated areas where they often eat contaminated food. The health situation is alarming, especially for the children. The socio-economic situation in that country is bad anyway, which makes the people more vulnerable to disease and adverse effects than in normal circumstances. The government in Minsk may spend a huge proportion of the government budget on the effects, but it refuses to deal with the problem openly. Its policy is often counterproductive and screens the problem from the outside world.
The international community is involved, albeit on a small scale. NGOs carry out their work under difficult conditions. My admiration goes especially to the European organisations which bring thousands of children to western Europe annually for a holiday in order to enable them to recover to some extent from the effects of radiation. But that, of course, is not enough by a long chalk.
Relations between the European Union and the undemocratic government in Belarus are strained. We can understand that. At the same time, it is difficult to accept that not more of an effort is being made, precisely in the interest of the people affected, who are not at all involved in government politics.
It has been said before, but I would once again like to make an urgent appeal to the Commission to free up more specific aid for Belarus. I am not convinced by the argument that neither TACIS nor ECHO allow this. We are talking about hundreds of thousands of people who are still in need and still require direct aid. Let us for once overstep our own political and bureaucratic boundaries."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples